How Does ITG Prevent Redemptions??

Status
Not open for further replies.
The size of your company and the lawsuits are mutually exclusive - you can have lawsuits (big ones) being a small company just as easy as being a big one.

The issue on redemptions is likely both cash-flow based and cash-influx based. What I mean is... if there is a cash requirement (influx) required in UD to pay the athletes, does McWilliam put the money in... or does he wait until the cash flow permits payment? This can create a snowball effect. From what Brian has said, the cash influx occurs up front for ITG, and then the cash flow occurs after, providing him with the cash influx the next time.

From someone who owns a reasonably large small business... I envy Brian's position greatly, as many of us are in UD's position (in my example above at least).
 
The size of your company and the lawsuits are mutually exclusive - you can have lawsuits (big ones) being a small company just as easy as being a big one.

The issue on redemptions is likely both cash-flow based and cash-influx based. What I mean is... if there is a cash requirement (influx) required in UD to pay the athletes, does McWilliam put the money in... or does he wait until the cash flow permits payment? This can create a snowball effect. From what Brian has said, the cash influx occurs up front for ITG, and then the cash flow occurs after, providing him with the cash influx the next time.

From someone who owns a reasonably large small business... I envy Brian's position greatly, as many of us are in UD's position (in my example above at least).

First, I didn't say that it's impossible to get sued or even start a lawsuit due to the size of a business. I said that in general you have a tendency to get more lawsuits.

Just curious, what do you consider a "big" business? When the company I worked for got sold, we and the stock analysts (we were public) considered us to be medium. Our officers called us a small company trying to be a medium one. The big corp who bought us paid about nearly 1 billion dollars US for our company.

In a big business, you have an accounting department, a finance department, a project management department, production departments and so on...it's not done just by a CEO's say so (I believe McWilliam is CEO). The other officers like the CFO have to approve as well, at least on big projects like signing with a particular league. For products that come out every year like Black Diamond, I'm sure the CFO (a guy named Skip Richmond, I think) and crew just make sure all of the numbers are within set parameters.

- R
.><.
 
Talk about hi-jacking a thread.

Glad I didn't do this, I would have been tarred and feathered by now.

Brian Price
 
I just asked how we think ITG prevents redemptions.

Based on Dr. Price's statement, from his company's standpoint it ISN'T the players not getting cards back in time. They are pretty responsive. And the few that do get back late are just not inserted in the product.

Need facts from the other companies. No proof of that happening with the other companies....at least they haven't reported the way they do their signings and why redemptions are needed ...money up front? money after the autos are returned? 1/2 now, 1/2 later? using agents? using NHLPA, etc??
 
I read an interesting word... innovation... I find it quite interesting as I don't see Upper Deck as the BIG innovator. Redemptions of one description or another have been around since hockey cards were produced... Mail in packages and get storage boxes, booklets, etc...

And other than the jersey card, what is the real UD innovation (if that was in fact their's)? Auto - No, Inserts - No, Mail ins - No

You want to talk innovation - talk Pacific. Talk Seventh Inning Stretch. Talk In The Game.

The small guy taking the leap onto the big stage. Producing a product to compete.
 
Last edited:
I can give you dozens of examples of Upper Deck copying and taking ideas of others but that's not what this thread is about.

Were they innovative? You bet, back in 1989 they revolutionized sports cards. But does that give them a pass forever?

Over the years some of the greatest talents in the sports card industry worked at Upper Deck. There is no denying that.

Brian Price
 
I just asked how we think ITG prevents redemptions.

Based on Dr. Price's statement, from his company's standpoint it ISN'T the players not getting cards back in time. They are pretty responsive. And the few that do get back late are just not inserted in the product.

Need facts from the other companies. No proof of that happening with the other companies....at least they haven't reported the way they do their signings and why redemptions are needed ...money up front? money after the autos are returned? 1/2 now, 1/2 later? using agents? using NHLPA, etc??

I'd say it comes down to two main reasons: Money up front and smaller volume of autographs.

Let's look at it from the player's prospective. Say I'm Alex Ovechkin and I just received two packages, one from UD and another from ITG. For arguements sake let's say each box contained the stickers/cards for a full year's worth of products (obviously not the case but let's pretend).

UD box has thousands of stickers and cards that have to be spread over the 15 or so products they can make. Since I'm Ovechkin my time is valuable and I charge a lot for my autograph so this represents a lot of money and a lot of work to get these done, yet there is no cheque in the box.

ITG box has significantly fewer cards/stickers because ITG makes fewer sets and produces fewer cases. There may be, I will estimate, 300-500 autographs requested as opposed to the thousands from UD. And look, there's a cheque in the box! (Brian feel free to correct me if my estimates are way off).

As a busy player with a million things to do which option would I be most motivated to take on? Do I take the hours and hours to sign all the stuff UD sent me and sit around waiting for a paycheque or do I sign the smaller number of autographs for Brian who has always had the courtesy of paying me up front? I would say in the vast majority of cases the player will sign the ITG cards and return them before even looking at the UD box.
 
You are not far off.

Let me expand the scenario. The player (let's call him Alex Ovechkin) receives two packages. One from ITG with 200 signatures as part of a larger amount with a check enclosed and one from another manufacturer who owes him money from previous autographs.

Yes, I do get mine back. Can't comment what happens with the other package but based on redemptions, it obvious.

So can you really blame the player for that? What would you do if you were the player.

I have heard this directly from agents, have the other posters heard this first-hand?

Again, treat the players properly and with respect and you usually get the same in return.

You usually find that hockey players are the best to deal with. At least that's been my experience.

I have NEVER had a player cash his check and not send me back the autographs.

Brian Price
 
I don't think redemption is a word ITG want to rely on. It's enought your paying up front for your auto, you don't want to start loosing profit on packaging redemption cards to customer. Just curious on how people sign. Do they actually have the card in hand or do they have sheets of sticker to sign in hand then you add it to the card.
 
I have NEVER had a player cash his check and not send me back the autographs.

Brian Price

Never is a very long time Dr Price.
You have had players short you on the autos they sent back to you though.
And I am pretty sure that was the very LAST time you had redemptions in your products. I would be speaking of the 02/03 ITG Signature Series - specifically Red Wings Autos from my point of view. Maybe some were lost - but I know that a lot were sent out by ITG as redemptions - but a good portion of the Yzerman Gold Auto's were not.


And that is part of the point.
ITG and Dr Price learned their lesson - no more redemptions.
And from a personal standpoint - Panini better realize that a lot of collectors gave up on UD because of redemption issues - because they are fast approaching the same status. Personally - I am not buying any Panini, too many issues already in a short time period.

It is just too bad that ITG can't show players in their team uni's - that is a deal killer for me.
 
Back then Suitman19, your talking about 10 years ago, we handled autographs a different way.

The NHLPA handled the Be A Player autographs and it was a nightmare but it was their charity project and I did things their way. I sent my autographs out as part of that package and sometimes we had to wait for signatures.

I learned what collectors wanted and what they didn't want and that's when we adopted the no redemptions policy.

I stand behind my comment of NEVER. I have NEVER paid a player for autographs he did not return. Sure sometimes they screw up a few but that happens.

I too wish I could show the logos on our cards. Maybe I won't have to attach the NEVER comment to that.

Brian Price
 
As a side track Dr Price....

A while ago you said that doing a Superlative/BBR type release with my Red Wings was just an impossibility without Mr Howe being signed on at ITG. Well that has changed!
So - think it can happen now - or is there an issue with portraying Gordie as a Red Wing (curious because it seemed that the promotional releases showed him as a Whaler).
 
I am not sure we did any promotional releases for Superlative Hockeytown as yet.

It is in the planning stages right now. No timing available but we were thrilled to get Mr. Hockey back into our family.

Brian Price
 
I read an interesting word... innovation... I find it quite interesting as I don't see Upper Deck as the BIG innovator. Redemptions of one description or another have been around since hockey cards were produced... Mail in packages and get storage boxes, booklets, etc...

And other than the jersey card, what is the real UD innovation (if that was in fact their's)? Auto - No, Inserts - No, Mail ins - No

You want to talk innovation - talk Pacific. Talk Seventh Inning Stretch. Talk In The Game.

The small guy taking the leap onto the big stage. Producing a product to compete.

I mentioned innovation..... when talking about ITG. You are re-stating my point.
 
It's obvious to me that ITG has the perfect solution to insure a no redemption scenario. Pay the player as he signs. If a small company like ITG can do it, why can't UD or Panini? These are HUGE companies with deep pockets, no?

I'll say it again: The manufacturers should have a representative in a specific city for each division. Send all your stickers/cards to the rep. Schedule signings with each team that is in town at specific times in the season. Once you know your schedule with the players, make sure to have cheques ready for each one when they sign. It will cost to pay the rep but the savings will be massive if you cut down on the number of redemptions having to be mailed out
Granted, this would not work for retired players and in some cases rookies who are sent down so it wouldn't necessarily eliminate all redemptions but it would certainly cut them down in a big way.

I just don't understand why UD or Panini don't change their strategy. Heck, I'll gladly put my name out there to be the Ottawa rep LOL
 
He said "no flame-fest" so I'll just leave it alone, even though I'm called out.

I'll just say this. People say UD is only financially motivated. They are a business so I buy that, they should be financially motivated.

So what financial motivation is there to have to make redemptions, sort out those redemptions, sort out those returning cards, have a whole computer system with front-end web site, pack those cards to mail, maintain a stock of supplies and envelopes for mailouts, and have to pay USPS and FedEx to mail cards? Because I've redeemed, out of products I've opened personally, several hundred cards. And of those cards, less than 10% were un-redeemable. And of those few, I've already received just compensation with just one call to UD and it was done.

I have the stack of chits right here next to my computer because I have a weird sense of fun when I look through them, to recall what was a redemption. They represent what must have been tens, maybe hundreds of thousands of cards that they had to mail out (not counting pre-made stuff like the old Artifacts RCs). Why would UD go through all of that trouble? How do they make money off of that, all those extra mailings? How is that good business for them to do it deliberately as a company policy?

How is it a good idea to UD to have to mail out 999 Jesse Schultz SPA Future Watches? Or to have to track non-existent Noah Welch cards? Or Nicklas Nordgren SOTTs? I guarantee you those aren't being "backdoored" nor does UD have any motivation to sucker people into thinking these guys are on the checklists and not make the cards.

It's not a UD policy, I can tell you that. Nor is it a UD problem. Topps has the same issue on the licenses they own. And now, so does Panini and they do it even less well. All of the big companies who handle players in the thousands and handle product in the hundreds of thousands/millions of cases, they all have these problems.

The only explanation is either the player never got the cards to sign (lost on the way to them) or they never returned them. And with a large majority of redemptions, and I would have personal experience as a collector, they do get sent out.

On the other hand, you can imagine the amount of work, the level of endeavor a big company can have to produce a set year after year with as many hard signed autographs as SP Authentic. Every single year, a long checklist with so many /999 Future Watch autos...the size of the organization that can do that. And what else that organization can do, in UD's case...just as bring the first game used memorabilia on card, bring the first hard-signed autos EVER to a major licensed sport card, bring the first high end paper to cards, bring rookies and young players their cards years sooner, get all sorts of licenses to do so.

Heck, we call all cards with jerseys on them "game jerseys" because UD made them first and called them that. ...even the first "stick" cards were made by UD, the baseball bat of Babe Ruth (first memorabilia cards ever). We expect high end photography because UD made the first set of cards with all high end photos and resolution. The beloved Team Canada sets that seem to come out...UD did that first in 90-91 high numbers. Reggie Jackson, then Brett Hull autos... Young Guns... Long tradition brands like the SPs, Black Diamond, . Ultimate Collection, then The Cup. The first Wayne Gretzky auto and the first auto per pack set (Be A Player) where everyone had a chance to open a real auto. The first desirable chase set based on a cool theme in Hockey Heroes...heck we're still looking for header cards in this year's product! The first McDonalds set, biggest selling sets in history of hockey collecting, I heard.



I know you guys like to prop up In The Game. But...

It's time to be real. Everything current cards are now that we love the most are based on things UD brought out first. They could do this because they thought big, proved durable throughout the years despite taking a lot of risks. They've had to continue to survive by running their business as a business. And all of the other big card companies try to either emulate them or one-up them, even Topps, the granddaddy of them all. And they all do redemptions. In a business you can't really hold on to one little stack of cards and put them in a later product. You have to design whole products at a time and have them approved by various boards, execs and even bean counters. I worked for small companies, then I was put in charge of a division of a large one. Later I went to work for a mid-sized aggressive company but now, after we were bought out (friendly) I work for one of the biggest corps in the world. When big businesses make products, several teams and groups have to approve the business plan for it, including the numbers for the project.

It's a part of business. But then, there are things only bigger businesses can do. And sometimes those things change the game. In UD's case, that "sometimes" is MANY times.

- R
.><.

One of the better posts I've read in a while, nice job. Really looks at the true business side of the issue. Contrary to public belief, UD and Panini are not just out to grab your money then stick you with redemption cards without a care in the world if they get fulfilled or not...



You are not far off.

Let me expand the scenario. The player (let's call him Alex Ovechkin) receives two packages. One from ITG with 200 signatures as part of a larger amount with a check enclosed and one from another manufacturer who owes him money from previous autographs.

Yes, I do get mine back. Can't comment what happens with the other package but based on redemptions, it obvious.

So can you really blame the player for that? What would you do if you were the player.

I have heard this directly from agents, have the other posters heard this first-hand?

Again, treat the players properly and with respect and you usually get the same in return.

You usually find that hockey players are the best to deal with. At least that's been my experience.

I have NEVER had a player cash his check and not send me back the autographs.

Brian Price

Do not take this as a shot, but I think you need to think about what you're being told and by whom.

If you ask a player agent why his cards in UD or Panini were packed out as redemptions, would you really expect that agent to tell you - during negotiations - that his players is notorious for not getting his cards back on time? Or would you expect the agent to lay the blame at the feet of the other card company? It all needs to be kept in context. Kudos for you for eliminating the redemptions, but UD and Panini do not have the luxury of just omitting cards of a player that does not return their autographs on time. With numbered autograph rookie base sets that are pre-printed months in advance they are at the mercy of the player to some extent. Even Topps is still having problems with some of the baseball players, and they have the exclusive with MLB. I'm sure there's enough blame to pass around to both sides, but ITG has the luxury (or curse if you will) of being able to completely 100% control the content of their sets. Panini and UD MUST have all the rookies in their sets, and for sets like SP Authentic, Cup, Dominion, and a few others that means complete hard-signed rookie cards of every rookie playing this year. Panini could not release Dominion without Landeskog because his cards did not make it back in time... Again, context.
 
One of the better posts I've read in a while, nice job. Really looks at the true business side of the issue. Contrary to public belief, UD and Panini are not just out to grab your money then stick you with redemption cards without a care in the world if they get fulfilled or not...





Do not take this as a shot, but I think you need to think about what you're being told and by whom.

If you ask a player agent why his cards in UD or Panini were packed out as redemptions, would you really expect that agent to tell you - during negotiations - that his players is notorious for not getting his cards back on time? Or would you expect the agent to lay the blame at the feet of the other card company? It all needs to be kept in context. Kudos for you for eliminating the redemptions, but UD and Panini do not have the luxury of just omitting cards of a player that does not return their autographs on time. With numbered autograph rookie base sets that are pre-printed months in advance they are at the mercy of the player to some extent. Even Topps is still having problems with some of the baseball players, and they have the exclusive with MLB. I'm sure there's enough blame to pass around to both sides, but ITG has the luxury (or curse if you will) of being able to completely 100% control the content of their sets. Panini and UD MUST have all the rookies in their sets, and for sets like SP Authentic, Cup, Dominion, and a few others that means complete hard-signed rookie cards of every rookie playing this year. Panini could not release Dominion without Landeskog because his cards did not make it back in time... Again, context.

Thanks :)

I know I'm arguing this point with a bit of passion but A) I was called out and B) I feel there are a lot of us on this board who feel pressure to say there are five lights and not four, when there are four lights. (Star Trek TNG reference that is a reference to 1984. )

You know, I usually try to keep away from talking about ITG, unless I directly run into an actual problem with their cards...and that's happened a few times. When I ask other collectors in LA and people I buy from why they don't carry ITG when a lot of people here have said nice things, they give their opinion on why no one buys the stuff and I don't go back and post it here. I feel they do niche market stuff and there's a market segment for it.

I do regularly kick Panini, that's for sure though because they're trying to be the caliber of company UD is in the hobby. And I also have my own problems with UD, they are not perfect. But in this case, this thread, being called out, that was more than I personally can stand. And there are many collectors out there and on here who agree with me...agree with us...but are just afraid to say something.

Ironically when we do say something, it's done very emphatically.

- R
.><.
 
At the end of the day collectors determine what they want with their wallets.

Obviously, you support UD and that's your right, go for it.

But can you really justify the redemptions and collectors waiting months and months for them?

I still think you are hi-jacking this thread, it's about how we don't do redemptions, that's all.

I just don't think that posts on another thread blaming the players 95%+ of time are fair. I have an opinion since I have been in the business over 20 years dealing with these players.

That's all.

If I can't have an opinion in threads about UD or Panini for which I was
called out" and I can't have an opinion in threads about my own company, something is wrong here.

Raise your hands if you like redemptions!

Brian Price
 
Thanks :)

I know I'm arguing this point with a bit of passion but A) I was called out and B) I feel there are a lot of us on this board who feel pressure to say there are five lights and not four, when there are four lights. (Star Trek TNG reference that is a reference to 1984. )

You know, I usually try to keep away from talking about ITG, unless I directly run into an actual problem with their cards...and that's happened a few times. When I ask other collectors in LA and people I buy from why they don't carry ITG when a lot of people here have said nice things, they give their opinion on why no one buys the stuff and I don't go back and post it here. I feel they do niche market stuff and there's a market segment for it.

I do regularly kick Panini, that's for sure though because they're trying to be the caliber of company UD is in the hobby. And I also have my own problems with UD, they are not perfect. But in this case, this thread, being called out, that was more than I personally can stand. And there are many collectors out there and on here who agree with me...agree with us...but are just afraid to say something.

Ironically when we do say something, it's done very emphatically.

- R
.><.

Thing is we are all very passionate about the hobby. Most of us are fans of a specific company more than another. In your case it`s UD. You make valid points but for every positive post you have for UD, I can spew out negatives as well. Just like you will if I make pro-ITG posts.

The issue in this thread isn`t about who`s better and why, it`s about REDEMPTIONS and figuring out what UD and Panini can do to reduce them. You didn`t once bring a valid point regarding this question. Instead, you've been defending the redemption process
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
390,203
Messages
2,239,321
Members
4,172
Latest member
Singin
Back
Top